We would like to take a look at the oceanic warming of the Atlantic. From the latest Climate4You Newsletter (pdf her) We look at the heat content curve of the last 60 years for the upper most 100 meters of the Atlantic:

Clear to see: Over the past 13 years the Atlantic has not warmed further. The chart shows a large plateau. There was a plateau 1955-1985, followed by a rise, then another plateau starting in 2004.

The current missing warming of the upper layer of the Atlantic was also the subject of publication by Somavilla et al, which appeared in March 2016 in the Geophysical Research Letters. It claims that the heat simply moved from the upper levels to the lower layers of the Atlantic:

Mid-2000s North Atlantic shift: Heat budget and circulation changes
Prior to the 2000s, the North Atlantic was the basin showing the greatest warming. However, since the mid-2000s during the so-called global warming hiatus, large amounts of heat were transferred in this basin from upper to deeper levels while the dominance in terms of atmospheric heat capture moved into the Indo-Pacific. Here we show that a large transformation of modal waters in the eastern North Atlantic (ENA) played a crucial role in such contrasting behavior. First, strong winter mixing in 2005 transformed ENA modal waters into a much saltier, warmer, and denser variety, transferring upper ocean heat and salt gained slowly over time to deeper layers. The new denser waters also altered the zonal dynamic height gradient reversing the southward regional flow and enhancing the access of saltier southern waters to higher latitudes. Then, the excess salinity in northern regions favored additional heat injection through deep convection events in later years.”

And if you take a look at the temperature anomaly chart in the paper’s supplement (Fig. S1), you can see how heterogeneous this trend really is. We’ll have to keep an eye on it.

Full-depth temperature trends in the northeastern Atlantic through the early 21st century
The vertical structure of temperature trends in the northeastern Atlantic (NEA) is investigated using a blend of Argo and hydrography data. The representativeness of sparse hydrography sampling in the basin mean is assessed using a numerical model. Between 2003 and 2013, the NEA underwent a strong surface cooling (0–450 m) and a significant warming at intermediate and deep levels (1000 m to 3000 m) that followed a strong cooling trend observed between 1988 and 2003. During 2003–2013, gyre-specific changes are found in the upper 1000 m (warming and cooling of the subtropical and subpolar gyres, respectively), while the intermediate and deep warming primarily occurred in the subpolar gyre, with important contributions from isopycnal heave and water mass property changes. The full-depth temperature change requires a local downward heat flux of 0.53 ± 0.06 W m−2 through the sea surface, and its vertical distribution highlights the likely important role of the NEA in the recent global warming hiatus.”

We wish to take another look at the mentioned North Atlantic cooling in an up-to-date chart from Climate4You:

Fig. 2: North Atlantic heat content curve for the past 60 years (upper 700 of the North Atlantic water mass). Chart: Climate4You.

Contrary to conventional wisdom/consensus, man-made/anthropogenic CO2 was driving the earth towards catastrophic warming. According to Bill Nye the Science Guy, the truth, however, is just the opposite.

At what point did CO2 concentration change supersede the parameters that “drive the transmission of solar radiation in the atmosphere”? I ask because scientists don’t even mention CO2 as an atmospheric parameter factor that contributes — let alone drives — the solar radiation transmission. Why is that, SebastianH?
—
Alexandri et al., 2017http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169809516303398“Using a radiative transfer model and a set of ancillary data, these biases are attributed to the atmospheric parameters that drive the transmission of solar radiation in the atmosphere, namely, clouds, aerosols and water vapor.” [CO2 not mentioned]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0041:OOTIRP>2.0.CO;2Observations of the Infrared Radiative Properties of the Ocean“[I]t is necessary to understand the physical variables contributing to sea surface emitted and reflected radiation to space.The emissivity of the ocean surface varies with view angle and sea state, the reflection of sky radiation also depends on view angle and sea state, and the absorption of atmospheric constituents such as water vapor, aerosols, and subdivisible clouds affect transmittance.” [CO2 not mentioned]
—http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC091iC09p10585/abstract“The heat balance of the global ocean surface layer is calculated using bulk flux formulations. … Incoming solar radiation and latent heat flux are the two dominant components that control net surface energy fluxes. Wind speed, cloud cover, and the gradient of specific humidity are the three most important meteorological parameters in determining surface flux”. [CO2 not mentioned]

you are so lost here, since the whole AGW pablum,is based on the CO2 effect on the ATMOSPHERE, not in the Ocean waters of the world,which is dominantly being warmed to depths of 300 feet (100 M)from the SUN!

Satellite data show that CO2 effect is very small,which is why the AGW conjecture failed.

Everything is warmed from the Sun. The only other energy source is Earth’s core which contributes very little to surface temperatures.

And I agree, AGW is based on the fact that the greenhouse effect exists. Some skeptics deny that this is the case and invent some magic effects in order to get a surface temperature that matches observations. Are you one of them?

SebastianH, do you believe there is such a “thing” as being a skeptic, accepting the greenhouse effect “exists”, but simultaneously acknowledging that CO2 is only a minor player? Why do you have to dishonestly make up a straw man and claim that “skeptics…invent some magic effects in order to get surface temperature that matches observations”? Who here has written about something magical occurring? Is making up fake positions and attributing them to others an effective tactic for you elsewhere?
—
Lightfoot and Mamer, 2014http://journals.sagepub.com.sci-hub.cc/doi/abs/10.1260/0958-305X.25.8.1439CO2 accounts for 2.7% of the global warming while all of the other gases account for approximately 0.7% for a total of approximately 3.4%. It becomes evident that, on average, water vapour accounts for approximately 96% of the current global [greenhouse effect] warming.

“Satellite data show that CO2 effect is very small,which is why the AGW conjecture failed.”

Because the Satellite data says so. Not only that the IPCC reports keeps telling us from 1990 on wards that it was first PREDICTED,then afterwards projected that it would warm around .30C per decade,it NEVER has been close to that. Currently Satellite data from 1979,show a .12C per decade warming trend,from 1998 on wards, a .05C per decade warming. Basically statistically insignificant trend of late.

You go on with your childish baloney:

“And I agree, AGW is based on the fact that the greenhouse effect exists. Some skeptics deny that this is the case and invent some magic effects in order to get a surface temperature that matches observations. Are you one of them?”

Once again have to point out the freaking obvious that the postulated AGW effect is to be in the ATMOSPHERE arena,where Satellite measures the minor effects in various parts of the atmosphere, the surface temperature doesn’t matter much. As YOU said yourself,the sun is the dominant source of heat and energy in ocean waters. The “Greenhouse” effect doesn’t exist in the water,because CO2 which is already in abundance, doesn’t absorb, hardly any IR at all there.

The other massive AGW predictive failure is the still missing Tropospheric “hotspot” that was supposed to show up as per the contrived climate models. It hasn’t after several decades.

This is easy stuff for anyone who can read and think beyond their noses.

3. There has never been a controlled scientific experiment that has generated physical measurements (or empirical observations) demonstrating that varying CO2 concentrations over a body of water causes heat change in water.

seb, if you haven’t got the intelligence to understand pressure and density gradients and how they differ in liquids and gases, then nobody can help you comprehend anything. You are missing a major slab of basic education.

Duchez et al., 2016http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/7/074004#erlaa2f23s5
“[C]old ocean temperatures were the most extreme in the modern record [since 1948] over much of the mid-high latitude North-East Atlantic. … we consider the exceptionally cold ocean surface anomaly that was already in place prior to the onset of the 2015 heat wave. The SST anomaly field for June 2015 shows temperatures up to 2 °C colder than normal over much of the sub-polar gyre with values that are the coldest observed for this month of the year in the period 1948–2015 indicated by stippling. The cause of this cold anomaly has been the subject of widespread interest in the media, we now show for the first time that it can be attributed to a combination of air–sea heat loss from late 2014 through to spring 2015 and a re-emergent sub-surface ocean heat content [cold] anomaly that developed in preceding years.”

Could it have something to do with the gulf stream? Or do you actually believe that the Sun is responsible? Who is responsible for the warming of the rest of the ocean then? Does the Sun shine differently elsewhere?

“Who is responsible for the warming of the rest of the ocean then? Does the Sun shine differently elsewhere?”

I’ll try to help you understand how climate change works, SebastianH, by introducing you to some scientific papers. I literally have 100s more like these. Let me know if you need more educational literature.

Yamakawa et al., 2016
This study attempted to determine the relationships between solar activity and SST [sea surface temperature]. Instrumental data from 1901 to 2011 revealed a significant positive relationship on a global basis. … Conclusion: The analysis of the relationship between variations in solar activity and SST from 1901 to 2011 indicated that sunspot numbers and SST were positively correlated in wide areas, with statistically significant positive correlations in many regions. … It is worthy of note that the highest coefficients at a 29-month lag were found in the relationships both between SSN [sunspot number] and PDO [Pacific Decadal Oscillation], and SSN and CP El Niño with statistical significance at the 99% confidence level, respectively.
—Salau et al., 2016
Discussion of the Results: The results show that there is good connection between ENSO events and the changes in the background temperature and the precipitation in Nigeria. … Overall, the investigation shows a linear relationship between the solar radiation and the induced temperature, thus indicating that the observed variations in the temperature are mainly controlled by the insolation forcing
—Wang et al., 2016
Spectral analyses suggested that the reconstructed annual mean temperature variation may be related to large-scale atmospheric–oceanic variability such as the solar activity, Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO).
—Faust et al., 2016
A recent study of instrumental time series revealed NAO [North Atlantic Oscillation] as main factor for a strong relation between winter temperature, precipitation and river discharge in central Norway over the past 50 years. … The [NAO proxy record] shows distinct co-variability with climate changes over Greenland, solar activity and Northern Hemisphere glacier dynamics as well as climatically associated paleo-demographic trends.
—McCarthy et al., 2015
Positive (negative) phases of the AMO coincide with warmer (colder) North Atlantic sea surface temperatures. The AMO is linked with decadal climate fluctuations, such as Indian and Sahel rainfall, European summer precipitation, Atlantic hurricanes and variations in global temperatures. It is widely believed that ocean circulation drives the phase changes of the AMO by controlling ocean heat content.
—Liu et al., 2015Modulation of decadal ENSO-like variation by effective solar radiation
Here, we show that the effective solar radiation (ESR), which includes the net solar radiation and the effects of volcanic eruption, has modulated this decadal ENSO-like oscillation. The eastern Pacific warming (cooling) associated with this decadal ENSO-like oscillation over the past 139 years is significantly related to weak (strong) ESR [effective solar radiation].
—Lakshmi and Tiwari, 2015
The 11 years solar cycle acts an important driving force for variations in the space weather, ultimately giving rise to climatic changes. Therefore, it is very important to understand the origin of space climate by analyzing the different proxies of solar magnetic variability. The another most important climate variation is El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events, which impact the global oceanic and atmospheric circulations which thereby produce droughts, floods and intense rainfall in certain regions. The strong coupling and interactions between the Tropical Ocean and atmosphere play a major role in the development of global climatic system. … In particular, the El Niño, solar, geomagnetic activities are the major affecting forces on the decadal and interdecadal temperature variability on global and regional scales in a direct/indirect way.
—Tiwari et al., 2015
Invariably the splitting of spectral peaks corresponding to solar signal indicated nonlinear characteristics of the data and; therefore, even small variations in the solar output may help in catalyzing the coupled El Niño-atmospheric ENSO cycles by altering the solar heat input to the oceans. We, therefore, conclude that the Indian temperature variability is probably driven by the nonlinear coupling of ENSO and solar activity.

while this article is nitpicking small time spans in specific regions to keep simulating a pause as a talking point, the real world is moving on fast. The EPA is eliminating real information and people and especially scientists are getting really angry. The backlash will be huuuuge.

the “real world” is quickly falling behind,while increasing snowfall and cold of the last decade comes along,in complete defiance of the 2001,2007 IPCC reports. Currently winter is slow to leave large areas of Europe and Asia and even in North America,as shown here, in the LAST WEEK OF APRIL:

The last time Santa Fe saw snow this late in the season was May 7, 1969

There are so many problems with the blaming ocean warming on CO2.
1) Ocean heat content is 2000x that of the atmosphere.
2) Oceans and water cover over 70% of the globe.
3) The only mechanism by which CO2 can affect climate change is by trapping LWIR between 13 and 18 microns. Those wavelengths don’t and won’t warm water.
4) Trapping heat as defined by the GHG effect can’t result in cooling.
5) Warming oceans are evidence of more visible radiation reaching the oceans.
6) More visible radiation reaching the oceans is evidence of cleaner air and fewer clouds.

If you want to explain why the atmosphere is warming, you have to explain why the oceans are warming, and there is no way for CO2 to be warming the oceans.

So you believe that the ocean is radiating directly into space then? So the entire ocean surface with an average temperature of 15°C would radiate 371 W/m² into space and only receive ~240 W/m² from the Sun (on average)? How does this work without backradiation from GHGs?

Riser et al., 2016http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2872.epdf“Most regions of the world ocean are warmer in the near-surface [0-700 m] layer than in previous decades, by over 1° C in some places. A few areas, such as the eastern Pacific from Chile to Alaska, have cooled by as much as 1° C, yet overall the upper ocean has warmed by nearly 0.2° C globally since the mid-twentieth century.”

Yes, this is how “global” warming works. Some regions of the ocean are cooling, some regions of the ocean are warming, and the overall difference between the warming and cooling is the “global” trend.

So, in other words, if the Arctic warmed by +1.5 C since 1979, but Antarctica cooled by -1.3 C since 1979, it would not be misleading to say that the polar regions have warmed by 0.2 C since 1979, right?

Archives

Die kalte Sonne – German bestseller!

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy